I just mentioned that southern gentleman Jim DeMint (R-SC) last week, but here he is again, opening his giant noise hole and repeating hugely offensive inanities that any thinking person would have labored to bury in a deep, dark hole.

These inanities, which he first proclaimed in 2004: homos and sluts (meaning unmarried ladies who Do It) should be barred from teaching. Of course, he also flapped on about “taking America back” and “defending marriage” and other things I can’t mention without abusing scare quotes, but it’s that first one that has me alternately scratching my head and slapping my thighs. When asked about his supporters’ response to this fatwa, he claimed that they had his back on this one: “They don’t want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion.”

Scratching my head, because how, exactly, would one ascertain who is queer (I’m assuming he’s only concerned about dudes, really), and who among the ladies is sluttin’ it up in their free time? (I’m guessing the Junior Anti-Sex League.) Slapping my thighs, because SRSLY, DeMint? This is a pressing concern? Jobs, corporate abuses, foreclosures, and jobs? (I guess the Junior Anti-Sex League will employs millions.) Scratching my head again, because “freedom to religion”? When did “religion” become a verb?

DeMint himself was “religing” at this speech, which took place at a Baptist Church in Spartanburg. You can read more on his latest rallying of the hateful here.

My mother, a teacher in a Title 1 school, once complained about a fellow teacher who was pregnant and unmarried. I understood her concern, but I think that it’s just a knee-jerk reaction. The thing is, many children at that school only have breakfast because the school provides it for free. When they don’t know where their next meal is coming from, a pregnant, unmarried teacher is the least of the school’s worries.

Vegkitty, I don’t understand her concern, unless she views unmarried mothers as somehow immoral or bad role models, in which case, fuck her. Unmarried mothers—never married, divorced or widowed—should not be stigmatized.

Besides, I strongly suspect that many of those students have unmarried mothers, so getting on a morality trip about a teacher being unwed and pregnant has the side effect of telling those kids that they and their families are somehow immoral or “less than.”

Those are actual problems that would require solving. Solving problems is hard and doesn’t guarantee any one will notice or care. But if you can scream “think of the children!” whilst spreading hate…that seems to be a very effective campaign strategy.

@rodriguez: Yeah, I think that’s a pretty important aspect of the discussion. Because 40% of children in the US are born to unwed mothers, and in the African-American community, it’s almost 70%. So the morality police—most of whom are Team Jesus—can fuss all they want but the barn door is open, the horse is gone, and it ain’t coming back. Telling kids that their moms are sluts isn’t going to create social uplift.

Besides, if there were a male teacher who had a child out of wedlock, would we even be having this conversation? If he was raising the kid on his own, the same parents would probably be lionizing him for being such a good dad.

You’d think his head would implode under the weight of all that cognitive dissonance.

Freedom of religion–any religion you want!–as long as it’s conservative, evangelical Christianity.

Your rights–all of them!–as long as you’re not talking about your right not to be discriminated against by your own government.

Let’s try this: “They don’t want the government giving rights to people who might believe and/or act differently and taking away their right to impose their own backwards beliefs on their helpless spawn.”
Fixed it for you, Jimmy-Boy.

Leave the unmarried alone. Leave the children from unions (any unions) alone. It’s a harsh and hard enough world without assholes hurting a young child because his parents didn’t work out, or her parents are gay or whatever the case may be. That sort of thinking is assuming that everyone was/is raised in the exact often privilaged situation and that’s not even the case. Maybe we shouldn’t judge at all and just love everyone a little more than we would like to be loved ourselves…because you just never know how good or bad that individuals life is.

@rodriguez: If it weren’t this stuff, it would be something else equally trivial. The world view these people have requires that they differentiate between us (good)and them (bad); otherwise, there’s no point in their suffering here on earth. If there’s no reward for denying one’s sexual self, working hard so other people can reap the profits, being born a white straight American, and on and on, what’s the point of it all?

I like how you quoted “taking America back” and other things to illustrate your point. I think it’s great writing. Leaving us to infer the disgusting beliefs or actions.

Good thinking about how such screening would be activated, but I think a bigot like DeMint would have no qualms about asking people about their sexual activities, orientation, etc. or having these things investigated.